Post-Modern Object-Relations Theory
One critique that I would have of Harry Guntrip's theory of ego, as well as with all object-relations theory, is that it places too much emphasis on the very early mother-child relationship. Certainly, as any parent will attest, a child's personality is in development from the very start. Object-Relations effectively holds the view that if something goes wrong here, you are doomed to a life of ego-failure, but if everything goes well, you develop an iron-clad ego, able to withstand any problem that comes your way. There are several problems with this, not the least of which there are several important personality elements (*cough*sexdrive*cough*) which develop later through biochemical means.
Ego development may be hampered early on, but it may also be hampered or disrupted by later environmental effects. Even with the best mother-child relationship, because of the nature of our individual existence, there is no such thing as an un-failable ego. I imagine that child soldiers, after the symptoms of PTSD are treated, many years from now, will still suffer from regression and ego-splitting problems. Is this because they were all unfortunate enough to have a distant or overbearing mother? Certainly not, at least for the children who were taken at a later age. If one sees PTSD as the sympton of a much deeper ego rift, we may understand the horrors these children have been through as equal or more effecting than the horrors of a distant mother to her baby. Egos with poor resources from poor early relationships may later develop sustenance-giving relationships, and strong early egos later under siege may soon find their resources run dry.
Another problem with classical psychoanalysis is its Eurocentrism. Freud made the mistake of seeing culturally-defined "instincts" as normative for all (pre-cultural) babies. Object-relations theory removes this veneer of instinct, but it still has a purely Western view of mother-child relationship in mind. What about households with several mothers, or villages in which child-rearing is shared equally? Certainly object-relations theory may still hold true in these circumstances, however, the process of ego-development will need reworking if it is to be generally applicable.
One strength of Guntrip's understanding of the ego and regression problems is that it can be, with small adjustments, generalizable to any culture. As ego forms the framework of the personality, but not the content, different cultures, both individualistic and traditional, could have developed in response to the vicissitudes of the ego. Individualism is one way of determining action based on the reality of a fragile ego, strong family hierarchy and honor codes are others.
Ego development may be hampered early on, but it may also be hampered or disrupted by later environmental effects. Even with the best mother-child relationship, because of the nature of our individual existence, there is no such thing as an un-failable ego. I imagine that child soldiers, after the symptoms of PTSD are treated, many years from now, will still suffer from regression and ego-splitting problems. Is this because they were all unfortunate enough to have a distant or overbearing mother? Certainly not, at least for the children who were taken at a later age. If one sees PTSD as the sympton of a much deeper ego rift, we may understand the horrors these children have been through as equal or more effecting than the horrors of a distant mother to her baby. Egos with poor resources from poor early relationships may later develop sustenance-giving relationships, and strong early egos later under siege may soon find their resources run dry.
Another problem with classical psychoanalysis is its Eurocentrism. Freud made the mistake of seeing culturally-defined "instincts" as normative for all (pre-cultural) babies. Object-relations theory removes this veneer of instinct, but it still has a purely Western view of mother-child relationship in mind. What about households with several mothers, or villages in which child-rearing is shared equally? Certainly object-relations theory may still hold true in these circumstances, however, the process of ego-development will need reworking if it is to be generally applicable.
One strength of Guntrip's understanding of the ego and regression problems is that it can be, with small adjustments, generalizable to any culture. As ego forms the framework of the personality, but not the content, different cultures, both individualistic and traditional, could have developed in response to the vicissitudes of the ego. Individualism is one way of determining action based on the reality of a fragile ego, strong family hierarchy and honor codes are others.
Comments
Now, I am not familiar with Guntrip's particular brand of object relations theory so I can only speak from my more Winnicottian understanding of it. I would have to argue that I do believe the early infant-mother (or insert father) relationship is crucial. This is where we develop a view of the world (aka internal working model) in terms of whether people can be trusted and are reliable. Yet, I do not think that most OR people hold such rigid views as Guntrip is espousing. Yes someone who has a secure attachment can go on to have problems in other areas which can lead to psychological issues and someone with a more insecure attachment can develop positive secondary attachments later in life that can compensate. From an attachment perspective, one would say that insecure attachment predisposes one towards developing certain issues but it is in no way determinative.
Just some thoughts... we should talk about this next time we hang out :)